Supreme Court Rules Miranda Rights Should Have Been Read at School Interrogation 

On March 26, 2026, the Wisconsin Supreme Court, in State v. K.R.C., held that a 12-year-old middle school student was "in custody" for Miranda purposes while being interrogated by police at school.

A 12-year-old seventh-grade student was accused by a classmate of touching his groin. The following day, the student was removed from class for questioning. The first interrogation took place in a small, closed office used by the school resource officer (SRO), with one officer questioning the child and another, fully uniformed and armed, standing in front of the door. No Miranda warnings were given, and the student was not told he could leave, refuse to answer, or contact his parents. He eventually admitted that he may have accidentally touched the other student. Less than an hour later, questioning continued in a school suspension cubicle outside the SRO’s office, where the officers and an assistant principal stood around him and asked more direct questions. While the assistant principal did most of the questioning, an officer also asked the student questions. The student again said he did it by accident. After the second interrogation, the student remained in in-school suspension.

The State charged the student with Fourth Degree Sexual Assault. Before trial, the student sought to suppress his statements to law enforcement, arguing a violation of Miranda v. Arizona because he wasn’t read his rights when he was in custody at school. The circuit court admitted the statements at trial, found the student delinquent of Fourth Degree Sexual Assault, and the court of appeals affirmed. 

The case was appealed to the Wisconsin Supreme Court, which found that although the student was not formally arrested, he was in custody at school for Miranda purposes. The Court considered whether a reasonable person in the student’s position would have felt free to leave under the objective circumstances and whether the environment presented the same inherently coercive pressures as a police station interrogation. In making its decision, the Court relied on the student’s young age, the small and controlled locations of the questioning, the presence of multiple officers, and the positioning of a fully uniformed officer in front of the doorway in the first interview. 

This case upholds students’ Fifth Amendment rights against self-incrimination when they are in police custody at school. Moreover, it confirms that police are not exempt from their responsibilities to uphold these rights simply because the student is a minor in a school environment. While the onus is on law enforcement to read a student their rights, school leaders should be aware of this decision when coordinating with law enforcement to conduct student investigations at school.

This article was prepared by Attorney Malina Piontek, AWSA’s Level I Legal Services Provider. You may direct your Level I call-in questions to Malina at 608-497-3037 or email her at [email protected]. This article was designed to provide you with general authoritative information and with commentary as a service to AWSA members. It should not be relied upon as legal advice.